"We've come to take our government back" Rand Paul

[Buffalo Roam]

You hit it on the head. He favors a return to the days when businesses can refuse to server people based on the color of their skin. However, he did not say that he favored discrimination. But he does want to allow others the rigiht to do so.

I heard him last evening use the gun arguement to justify his position. There is just one small thing wrong with his arguement, what he wants to aviod already exists. People do not have the right to carry weapons on private property. And people/businesses cannot discriminate against people based on skin color. So Paul's rationalization of his position on civil rights is just plain silly.

joe business, colleges, government, discriminates on the basis of skin color, they do it every day, and have the blessing of the Government Affirmative Action Programs, discrimination is discrimination no matter what.

Actually your assessment of the right to carry on private property is just plain silly, you do not give up your Constitutional Rights just because of where you happen to be standing, if you did, then discrimination based on color by business is permissible as well, as it take place on private property.

“ "The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property." ”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

All rights belong to the People, that is the founding principle of our Constitution, the Government doesn't grant rights, the Natural Creator gave those rights unalienable.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Fun that was written during the time of slavery and Affirmative Action Programs don't discriminate, white people still get more jobs per populace then blacks.

 

[joepistole]

joe business, colleges, government, discriminates on the basis of skin color, they do it every day, and have the blessing of the Government Affirmative Action Programs, discrimination is discrimination no matter what.

Actually your assessment of the right to carry on private property is just plain silly, you do not give up your Constitutional Rights just because of where you happen to be standing, if you did, then discrimination based on color by business is permissible as well, as it take place on private property.

“ "The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property." ”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

All rights belong to the People, that is the founding principle of our Constitution, the Government doesn't grant rights, the Natural Creator gave those rights unalienable.

A couple of minor details, affirmative action plans do allow discrimination based on race and gender to ammend for previous adverse discrimination for these groups. But that is not what is being discussed here. So your refering to it is just chaff and superfluous.

The question is does the Tea Party champion, Mr. Paul, favor the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forbade discrimination based on race. It essentially forbade "whites only" restaurants, bathrooms, etc. Paul does not support this provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So if Paul had his way, we would go back to the good old days when businesses could go back and discriminate against people based on race.

Mr. Paul's rational for his belief is that if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or gender then we would not be allowed to restrict people from taking arms in public places like restaurants. The one little problem which I pointed out is that today, many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property. So his argument for allowing racial discrimination by businesses is null and void. It makes no sense.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

A couple of minor details, affirmative action plans do allow discrimination based on race and gender to ammend for previous adverse discrimination for these groups. But that is not what is being discussed here. So your refering to it is just chaff and superfluous.

The question is does the Tea Party champion, Mr. Paul, favor the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forbade discrimination based on race. It essentially forbade "whites only" restaurants, bathrooms, etc. Paul does not support this provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So if Paul had his way, we would go back to the good old days when businesses could go back and discriminate against people based on race.

Mr. Paul's rational for his belief is that if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or gender then we would not be allowed to restrict people from taking arms in public places like restaurants. The one little problem which I pointed out is that today, many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property. So his argument for allowing racial discrimination by businesses is null and void. It makes no sense.

joe, to discriminate in the present against certian individuals because of their skin color today, for discrimination against individuals in the past for their skin color, is still discrimination, and that is all affermative action does, continue the cycle of discrimination.

In one thing you are absolutly correct,

"many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property".

it makes no sense, just as when many state laws permitted slavery and discrimination against individuals because of the color of their skin.

"Constitutional Rights" are exactly that "Constitutional Rights" unalienable, and

http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/517/case.html

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 

[joepistole]

joe, to discriminate in the present against certian individuals because of their skin color today, for discrimination against individuals in the past for their skin color, is still discrimination, and that is all affermative action does, continue the cycle of discrimination.

You have a propensity to move toward the not relevant. The issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The issue is going back to the "whites" only establishment. It is not about Afirmative Action.

In one thing you are absolutly correct,

"many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property".

it makes no sense, just as when many state laws permitted slavery and discrimination against individuals because of the color of their skin.

"Constitutional Rights" are exactly that "Constitutional Rights" unalienable, and

http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/517/case.html

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

The law is the law. You may disagree with how it is intrepreted but it is what it is. And the Tea Party's champion, Mr. Paul's arguement makes no sense based on current law. It would appear to be an excuse to go back to the days of "whites only" restaurants and rest rooms.

 

[Cowboy]

You hit it on the head. He favors a return to the days when businesses can refuse to server people based on the color of their skin. However, he did not say that he favored discrimination. But he does want to allow others the rigiht to do so.

That's how freedom works. Sometmes people use their freedoms in ways that aren't nice or politically correct. :shrug:

 

[Cowboy]

A couple of minor details, affirmative action plans do allow discrimination based on race and gender to ammend for previous adverse discrimination for these groups. But that is not what is being discussed here. So your refering to it is just chaff and superfluous.

The question is does the Tea Party champion, Mr. Paul, favor the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forbade discrimination based on race. It essentially forbade "whites only" restaurants, bathrooms, etc. Paul does not support this provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So if Paul had his way, we would go back to the good old days when businesses could go back and discriminate against people based on race.

Mr. Paul's rational for his belief is that if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or gender then we would not be allowed to restrict people from taking arms in public places like restaurants. The one little problem which I pointed out is that today, many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property. So his argument for allowing racial discrimination by businesses is null and void. It makes no sense.

Affirmative action isn't totally irrelevant to the issue, since people complaining that Paul wants to allow discrimination need to remember that it's already legally permissable. If you believe that the government should prohibit discrimination, affirmative action should be included in that ban. If you believe in the right to private discrimination, affirmative action should be included in this as well.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, etc., oppose(d) certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 because it allows the government to commandeer private property under the guise of "civil rights". What they're doing is taking a stand for property rights and freedom of association, not discrimination.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You have a propensity to move toward the not relevant. The issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The issue is going back to the "whites" only establishment. It is not about Afirmative Action.


The law is the law. You may disagree with how it is intrepreted but it is what it is. And the Tea Parties Champion, Mr. Paul's arguement makes no sense based on current law. It would appear to be an excuse to go back to the days of "whites only" restaurants and rest rooms.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Bill of Rights are the Supreme statement of the rights of the Citizens of the United State, including and especially the IX and X Amendments.

You may want to declare this not revenant, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights is extremely relevant, so relevant that the Founding Fathers took the time write the Constitution and to add the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

I find it funny that you and your liberal friends love to reinterpret and rewrite the Constitution to you own standards when ever you want to support the parsed interpretation you come up with.

And yes, the issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is a absolute anathema to the Constitution as it encodes discrimination in the United States for past discrimination at the expense of discrimination in the present.

Under the Constitution and it's Law, everyone is equal, and it is unconstitutional to punish someone for crimes of another, so Affirmative Action is a Unconstitutional act as it punishes innocent citizens for the illegal act of others, denying them equal opportunity.

The XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United State

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Yes, deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and Affrmative Action denies equal protection of the laws.

 

[Cowboy]

Mr. Paul's rational for his belief is that if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or gender then we would not be allowed to restrict people from taking arms in public places like restaurants. The one little problem which I pointed out is that today, many states do permit property owners and businesses to prevent individuals from brining firearms onto private property. So his argument for allowing racial discrimination by businesses is null and void. It makes no sense.

I looked into this a bit more. It makes perfect sense. The government has decided that property rights and freedom of association are irrelevant in situations involving private discrimination and public breastfeeding, for example. Were it not for an obvious case of hypocrisy, the government could easily decide that the right to keep and bear arms trumps property rights, too.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I looked into this a bit more. It makes perfect sense. The government has decided that property rights and freedom of association are irrelevant in situations involving private discrimination and public breastfeeding, for example. Were it not for an obvious case of hypocrisy, the government could easily decide that the right to keep and bear arms trumps property rights, too.

I don't get it, what does property rights and affirmative action have to do with gun-ownership.

Under the Constitution and it's Law, everyone is equal, and it is unconstitutional to punish someone for crimes of another, so Affirmative Action is a Unconstitutional act as it punishes innocent citizens for the illegal act of others, denying them equal opportunity.

How does affirmative action punish innocent people, how does it deny equal protection under the law?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

How does affirmative action punish innocent people, how does it deny equal protection under the law?

It places people of certain sex, orientation, or color with less qualifications ahead of qualified people of other sex, orientation, or color for everything from slots for admission to colleges, to hiring for jobs

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

High court backs firefighters in reverse discrimination suit - CNN.com
Jun 29, 2009 ... The US Supreme Court sided Monday with white firefighters in a workplace discrimination lawsuit, a divisive case over the role race should ...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html - 96k

"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

 

[joepistole]

Affirmative action isn't totally irrelevant to the issue, since people complaining that Paul wants to allow discrimination need to remember that it's already legally permissable. If you believe that the government should prohibit discrimination, affirmative action should be included in that ban. If you believe in the right to private discrimination, affirmative action should be included in this as well.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, etc., oppose(d) certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act Of 1964 because it allows the government to commandeer private property under the guise of "civil rights". What they're doing is taking a stand for property rights and freedom of association, not discrimination.

Afirmative action is not relevant to the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with brining back "whites only" public insitutions. Additionally, Afirmative Action was intended only as a temporary fix, and is being phased out. Afirmative Action was a remedy to repair damages inflicted on certian citizens as the result of unfair discrimination.

I don't like any kind of racial or unfair discrimination...including Afirmative Action. But in my opinion it was needed, but not so much now. We have had almost a generation of Afirmative Action. And Afrimative Action enforcement is not what it was 30 years ago.

As for commandeering private property, you are going to have to get more specific. Because I don't understand how you get there or what you are referring too in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[joepistole]

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Bill of Rights are the Supreme statement of the rights of the Citizens of the United State, including and especially the IX and X Amendments.

You may want to declare this not revenant, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights is extremely relevant, so relevant that the Founding Fathers took the time write the Constitution and to add the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

I find it funny that you and your liberal friends love to reinterpret and rewrite the Constitution to you own standards when ever you want to support the parsed interpretation you come up with.

And yes, the issue is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which is a absolute anathema to the Constitution as it encodes discrimination in the United States for past discrimination at the expense of discrimination in the present.

Under the Constitution and it's Law, everyone is equal, and it is unconstitutional to punish someone for crimes of another, so Affirmative Action is a Unconstitutional act as it punishes innocent citizens for the illegal act of others, denying them equal opportunity.

The XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United State

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Yes, deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, and Affrmative Action denies equal protection of the laws.

What you seem not to be able to understand Mr. Buffalo Roam is that you and yours (limbaugh, hannity, beck, levin, et al) are not the final arbiters of US law. In the US we have organizations and individuals who are chartered and qualified by years of training to make these decisions about law. And as it happens these well qualified individuals have a vastly different intrepretation of our laws than do you. But here is the difference, they are better trainned, better educated, and chartered to intrepret the law. And when they make decisions regarding the law, they do so with a view to the totality of the law...meaning they do not go through the law and cherry pick in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. They look at the full body of the law before coming to a decision or intrepretation. Now you may not agree with the intrepretation, but that is the way it works in this country.

So no matter how much nonsense you post, the law is what it is and it is not what you say it is. So you continue to publish nonsense, print it in large colorful letters but it will not change reality.

Our body of law was developed over hundreds of years and it is what it is...disagree with it all you want. Try to change it if you wish, but it is what it is. It is the law. It is our law.

 

[ElectricFetus]

It places people of certain sex, orientation, or color with less qualifications ahead of qualified people of other sex, orientation, or color for everything from slots for admission to colleges, to hiring for jobs

How do you know they are less qualified? Affirmative action says nothing about choosing people regards of qualification.

Reverse discrimination is still discrimination.

You assume affirmative action must lead to reverse discrimination, I wonder why? Them niggers and spiks could not possibly be qualified for the job?

High court backs firefighters in reverse discrimination suit - CNN.com
Jun 29, 2009 ... The US Supreme Court sided Monday with white firefighters in a workplace discrimination lawsuit, a divisive case over the role race should ...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html - 96k

Sound like the city of New Haven problem, not affirmative action. Look affirmative action is a open ended in that it says what is needed as a goal, equal opportunity in the work place, and then policies are implemented by many to try to achieve that goal, if you feel the existing polices are detrimental to Caucasians please do suggest alternatives, I would love to hear them.

I happen to get the sense though that your not about alternatives, but rather that "X is wrong we must end it" with no idea of what to replace it with or worse ideas replacement with ideas too racist and to regressive to say out loud... Then again once work in to a frenzy even that unspoken barrier is penetrated and we end up seeing the comments and signs we do from the teabaggers.

 

[quadraphonics]

All of them. I would transfer the 'designing, building, and maintaining of the 'country's nuclear weapons arsenal' to the Military.

I would also transfer the 'maritime nuclear reactors for the US Navy' to the US Navy.

'Overseeing nuclear waste handling'- I would totally get rid of it, and let the States deal with it

'Clean-up of radioactive and toxic contamination'- to the State.

"Transferring" programs doesn't reduce costs - it just changes how they're accounted. Actually your proposal would increase costs, since you'd be splitting apart what is now a consolodated undertaking, and that would require duplicating parts of the work and bureaocracy.

And there are reasons this stuff isn't done by the military and the states (respectively) in the first place: to the former, it's considered pretty important to keep the nukes under civilian control. To the latter, waste handling and clean-up are inherently federal responsibilities: the former is beyond the scope of any one state (it's an inter-state commerce and regulation issue), and to the latter, the clean-up is of messes made by the Federal government.

Basic Research- This is an automatic cut.

Well that's not a good idea. Basic research is really, really important to the rest of the economy, but unlikely to be undertaken by private industry because the pay-off is too volatile and long-range.

A currency linked to a basket of physical things that hold real value rather than paper that can be printed to oblivion. I'm not proposing a 'gold standard' but a 'physical standard'. A basket of physical things that may/should include gold and silver, and probably some of the agricultural things like wheat and stuff.

In other words, you insist on zero inflation. The Fed already tracks the value of the dollar in such terms - it's called CPI. It's just that they don't target zero inflation, because that necessarily leads to high unemployment. Instead, they target some optimal balance of inflation and unemployment.

Such an approach also hamstrings the government's ability to use counter-cyclical monetary policy, and so will cause any downturns to be both more severe and more prolonged.

Allowing competing currencies to the US Dollar would be part of the transition because its not impossible to get rid of the Federal Reserve Dollar in a minute.

Not really - you could order the Federal Reserve to target 0% inflation pretty much as easily as I just wrote this sentence. But it wouldn't be a good idea.

Really? I don't know why people are are always (even Congress) is trying to address a problem that doesn't exist...

You must be new around here then. The illegal immigration issue is red meat to get the rednecks riled up in election years. And that's about it. The "problem" that's being addressed is the presence of Democratic incumbents.

Wages are obviously an incentive, but how could they live here as illegals?

Not sure what you're asking - if it's how they get by on very low wages, the answer is that they live in crowded flophouses and don't spend money on things like cars, gasoline, entertainment, etc. They also tend to work a lot of hours. Minimum wage works out to like $25k per year, if you work two jobs.

Why the resentment towards illegals if they're not a burden.

Racism, basically. That's why you never hear anyone complaining about illegals other than the Hispanic ones - and there are plenty from Europe, not to mention Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

And you think these illegals are being paid a good amount?

I know that they're being paid a lot more than they stand to make back home, if they can even find work there.

If I knew someone was an illegal I would pay him/her $5 hr and have them work like crazy. But I guess most Americans are stupid businessmen and pay them $20 hr?

No, they're generally paid very low wages for very hard work. In Mexico they'd be paid maybe $5 per day, if they could even find a job.

Its really high quality?

It's supposed to be about the same as here. Most Mexicans doctors and dentists get their training in the US.

Do you go there to get your healthcare there..

I would if I had any considerable healthcare costs. At present I don't, so it's a non-issue. But there's no shortage of people who do it.

I usually hear people coming here for better quality.

For fancy stuff like cosmetic surgery or the latest cutting-edge experimental treatments for rare diseases, sure. But not for your routine stuff that constitutes the vast majority of medical expenses.

Do they have the same level of regulations on the medical industry as we do?

Many of their hospitals are internationally accredited, and anyway weren't you just complaining that medical care in the US is heavily over-regulated (by the AMA, specifically)?

The point is that they get on to the system, and that increases healthcare costs.

Actually the main source of any increase is that they can't get onto the system due to their illegal status, and so have to rely on emergency services instead.

Meanwhile, how many other costs do they offset through the provision of cheap labor to the economy? Would you accept a doubling in the prices of food and construction in exchange for a 10% cut in healthcare costs?

Apparently Mexicans can work for less than the minimum wage and survive. Americans can't?

That would be "Americans don't want to." Which is understandable: they don't face the alternative the Mexicans do, which is privation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What you seem not to be able to understand Mr. Buffalo Roam is that you and yours (limbaugh, hannity, beck, levin, et al) are not the final arbiters of US law. In the US we have organizations and individuals who are chartered and qualified by years of training to make these decisions about law. And as it happens these well qualified individuals have a vastly different intrepretation of our laws than do you. But here is the difference, they are better trainned, better educated, and chartered to intrepret the law.

So no matter how much nonsense you post, the law is what it is and it is not what you say it is. So you continue to publish nonsense, print it in large colorful letters but it will not change reality.

Our body of law was developed over hundreds of years and it is what it is...disagree with it all you want. Try to change it if you wish, but it is what it is. It is the law. It is our law.

joe, you and your buddies, Maddow, Olberman, Krugman, Huffington, Friedman...don't seem to understand that you are not the final arbiter of the law either.

The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and it is written in language of Common Law , for the common man to understand with out the need of interpretation of your select well qualified individuals.

Yes,the Law is what it is, and you need to apply that to your self as well, (all to often you fail to include your self in your stricture) and just because we have many a stare decisis, does not mean that those cases and interpertations are correct, jut as the law is what it is and it is not what you claim it is in your posted opinions.

I have backed my opinions with references and citation, what have you provided?

You most common complaint is that it is out of context, yet you continually cannot show what is out of context, let alone provide the article in which you claim the words are taken out of context from.

Yes, joe, who had to lead you to;

IN MEMORIAM: For Justice Marshall
Texas Law Review, May, 1993 -- 71 Tex. L. Rev. 1125​

and then who provided the whole article in context? not you, all you could come up with is the continual refrain;

Three words out of Context​

 

[joepistole]

joe, you and your buddies, Maddow, Olberman, Krugman, Huffington, Friedman...don't seem to understand that you are not the final arbiter of the law either.

The Constitution is the Law of the Land, and it is written in language of Common Law , for the common man to understand with out the need of interpretation of your select well qualified individuals.

Yes,the Law is what it is, and you need to apply that to your self as well, (all to often you fail to include your self in your stricture) and just because we have many a stare decisis, does not mean that those cases and interpertations are correct, jut as the law is what it is and it is not what you claim it is in your posted opinions.

I have backed my opinions with references and citation, what have you provided?

You most common complaint is that it is out of context, yet you continually cannot show what is out of context, let alone provide the article in which you claim the words are taken out of context from.

Yes, joe, who had to lead you to;

IN MEMORIAM: For Justice Marshall
Texas Law Review, May, 1993 -- 71 Tex. L. Rev. 1125​

and then who provided the whole article in context? not you, all you could come up with is the continual refrain;

Three words out of Context​

LOL, I see you just cannot resist that inner troll.

Here is the difference, I never made a claim to be the final arbiter of the law. If you go back and read what did I say? I said the law is what it is...like it; change it; or leave it. It is what it is.

And I also said you cannot cherry pick through the law and only take the sentences or words you like...similar to what you did with the Kagan article. In the Kagan article you took three words out of context without listing the source material and misrepresented those words to suit your needs/wants. That is not, thank God, the way the law works.

It was only after repeated challenges to you that you came up with the source documentation. And guess what, the orginal document showed that you had misrepresented Kagan's words. Kagan used the 3 words you lifted form her article to describe the the reasoning Justice Marshall used in his decision making and to show Kagan why she was wrong.

So I repeat in our system of law, politicos such as yourself cannot cherry pick through the law to pick out the words and sentences that support their wants and ignore the body of the law.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

LOL, I see you just cannot resist that inner troll.

joe, if I am a troll then why do you end up respond to everything I post?

Here is the difference, I never made a claim to be the final arbiter of the law. If you go back and read what did I say? I said the law is what it is...like it; change it; or leave it. It is what it is.

Now joe, read read your own post, it is part and parcel of everything you try to hammer me on, that You are smarter and have the final wisdom as to the knowledge of the universe, or as it maybe the Constitution, or Federal Law, if you didn't think that way, you would never continue to troll my post in the manner you do.

You do it with every post you make.

And I also said you cannot cherry pick through the law and only take the sentences or words you like...similar to what you did with the Kagan article. In the Kagan article you took three words out of context without listing the source material and misrepresented those words to suit your needs/wants. That is not, thank God, the way the law works.

So I can't cherry pick but you can, typical liberal hubris ,joe, I did not take three words out of context, the context of the whole article supports the fact that Kagan in writing a MEMORIAM for Justice Marshall selected those things She most admired about Marshall, and what She had absorbed from Her education as a law clerk under the tutalage of the Chief Justice, again, you made the claim of things being out of context, and you didn't even have the whole article available to you to ascertain the context.

But then as a liberal, I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

It was only after repeated challenges to you that you came up with the source documentation. And guess what, the orginal document showed that you had misrepresented Kagan's words. Kagan used the words you lifted to describe the the reasoning Justice Marshall used in his decision making to show Kagan that she was wrong.

joe, I had the article, it was you who failed to present the article to support your contention that;

"Three words were out of context"​

And the Article fails to show that I took anything out of context.

It just took a little digging, that you failed to do, to find a site that was in open publication and did not charge to release Kagans "MEMORIAM for Justic Marshall"

So I repeat in our system of law, politicos cannot cherry pick through the law to pick out the words and sentences that support their wants and ignore the body of the law.

Exactly joe, and that is applicable to Democrats as well as Republican, Lawyers and Judges, and even you.

 

[786]

"Transferring" programs doesn't reduce costs - it just changes how they're accounted. Actually your proposal would increase costs, since you'd be splitting apart what is now a consolodated undertaking, and that would require duplicating parts of the work and bureaocracy.

A one time increase due to the transfer is likely. But you won't have a department sucking up money for the rest of its life... Transferring programs doesn't 'reduce costs' in terms of the real cost of those features, but it reduces the cost of beauracracy that introduces in inefficiency because you have a 'middle man' working in their. If the Military needs something done, they can have it done. If you add a broker in the middle, the broker has to be paid on top of the real costs.

And there are reasons this stuff isn't done by the military and the states (respectively) in the first place: to the former, it's considered pretty important to keep the nukes under civilian control.

And State's doing it makes it private?

To the latter, waste handling and clean-up are inherently federal responsibilities: the former is beyond the scope of any one state (it's an inter-state commerce and regulation issue), and to the latter, the clean-up is of messes made by the Federal government.

Again you're using the Commerce clause in a matter unintended. We already had a discussion on this.

You breathing is inter-state commerce, maybe the government also has control of how many deep breaths you can take.

Well that's not a good idea. Basic research is really, really important to the rest of the economy, but unlikely to be undertaken by private industry because the pay-off is too volatile and long-range.

So we don't have Pharmaceutical companies, because their business also has 'volatile and long-range'.

In other words, you insist on zero inflation. The Fed already tracks the value of the dollar in such terms - it's called CPI.

But real inflation is higher, because if you compared it to gold things were stable.

It's just that they don't target zero inflation, because that necessarily leads to high unemployment. Instead, they target some optimal balance of inflation and unemployment.

How does zero inflation lead to unemployment?

Such an approach also hamstrings the government's ability to use counter-cyclical monetary policy, and so will cause any downturns to be both more severe and more prolonged.

But we won't have endless wars, endless welfare, and also we would actually have a meaning to 'save for retirement'.

Not really - you could order the Federal Reserve to target 0% inflation pretty much as easily as I just wrote this sentence. But it wouldn't be a good idea.

You can explain to me how zero inflation actually increases unemployment?

Not sure what you're asking - if it's how they get by on very low wages, the answer is that they live in crowded flophouses and don't spend money on things like cars, gasoline, entertainment, etc. They also tend to work a lot of hours. Minimum wage works out to like $25k per year, if you work two jobs.

So those who are unemployed right now could have the lifestyle of a Mexican but obviously they won't be hired because if you hire someone below minimum wage legally and get reported on, then you're screwed by the government?

How is this justification for minimum wage laws?

Racism, basically. That's why you never hear anyone complaining about illegals other than the Hispanic ones - and there are plenty from Europe, not to mention Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Do liberals always play the race card?

I know that they're being paid a lot more than they stand to make back home, if they can even find work there.

And those who can't find a job can't work even if they're living to live like Mexicans...

So they come here to live like shit, just because there is a 'job'?

No, they're generally paid very low wages for very hard work. In Mexico they'd be paid maybe $5 per day, if they could even find a job.

But they survive right?

It's supposed to be about the same as here. Most Mexicans doctors and dentists get their training in the US.

Quality of care depends of facility as well.

Many of their hospitals are internationally accredited, and anyway weren't you just complaining that medical care in the US is heavily over-regulated (by the AMA, specifically)?

I think you didn't understand my question... I was suggesting that their 'cheap' healthcare may be due to having less regulation compared to us.

Actually the main source of any increase is that they can't get onto the system due to their illegal status, and so have to rely on emergency services instead.

Emergency service is a system of our healthcare system... so they do get on the 'system' as a burden.

Meanwhile, how many other costs do they offset through the provision of cheap labor to the economy? Would you accept a doubling in the prices of food and construction in exchange for a 10% cut in healthcare costs?

No I would remove minimum wage laws, and you'll see what happens.

That would be "Americans don't want to." Which is understandable: they don't face the alternative the Mexicans do, which is privation.

No, its because the government won't let them live the 'survival game'... Because the governments there for you.

Peace be unto you

 

[quadraphonics]

But you won't have a department sucking up money for the rest of its life...

Instead, you'll have multiple departments sucking up even more money, in perpetuity.

Transferring programs doesn't 'reduce costs' in terms of the real cost of those features, but it reduces the cost of beauracracy that introduces in inefficiency because you have a 'middle man' working in their.

There is no middle man now: the DoE makes weapons and reactors, and gives them to the military. That's one supplier, and one consumer - no middle man.

If the Military needs something done, they can have it done. If you add a broker in the middle, the broker has to be paid on top of the real costs.

There is no "broker" in the middle. There's a producer, and a consumer. And anyway those considerations only matter if the entities are for-profit: introducing a middle man doesn't really drive up costs if it's a non-profit arm of the government (beyond whatever redundant bureaocracy you introduce that is).

And State's doing it makes it private?

? non sequitur.

Again you're using the Commerce clause in a matter unintended.

I don't see how, unless you imagine that each state will somehow produce its own nuclear fuel and reactors, and host its own in-state waste treatment and disposal facilities. Which is absurd.

So we don't have Pharmaceutical companies, because their business also has 'volatile and long-range'.

? Pharmaceutical companies produce huge, predicatable revenue streams. The drug development component is risky and long-term, which is why we let them charge so much for the drugs. But basic research is even more risky and more long term - drug development is not basic research but product development.

But real inflation is higher, because if you compared it to gold things were stable.

But gold has no intrinsic value, so that statement is meaningless.

How does zero inflation lead to unemployment?

Not a wise question to be asking for somebody who goes around accusing others of not understanding economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

But we won't have endless wars, endless welfare, and also we would actually have a meaning to 'save for retirement'.

Bunch of nonsense - we had plenty of wars and welfare under the gold standard, and I see no lack of meaning in my present retirement savings.

You can explain to me how zero inflation actually increases unemployment?

See the link above. But the short story is that the restrictions on the money supply that are required for absolute price stability reduce investment in new businesses and, so, jobs.

So those who are unemployed right now could have the lifestyle of a Mexican but obviously they won't be hired because if you hire someone below minimum wage legally and get reported on, then you're screwed by the government?

? Not sure where you're coming from with this. Illegal immigrants don't generally get paid under minimum wage - you do that, you'll get busted for violating minimum wage laws. And if you can be shown to have knowingly employed illegal immigrants, you will get in trouble for that as well.

But generally, yeah, unemployment has a lot to do with expectations and incentives.

How is this justification for minimum wage laws?

Did I claim to be justifying minimum wage laws?

Do liberals always play the race card?

When dealing with overt racism it tends to be an appropriate response.

Do conservatives always race bait? Sure seems like it.

And those who can't find a job can't work even if they're living to live like Mexicans...

Huh?

So they come here to live like shit, just because there is a 'job'?

The alternative is worse - they'll live in much worse conditions, their parents will die, their children won't get educated, etc. Even at the US minimum wage, they can send home enough money to keep their parents eating, and if they're industrious enough to bring their family here their children can be citizens and get educated.

But they survive right?

Define "survive."

I think you didn't understand my question... I was suggesting that their 'cheap' healthcare may be due to having less regulation compared to us.

I don't think that's the issue - but, again, you view us as over-regulated, so that would be a strike in favor of Mexico's health system anyway, no?

Emergency service is a system of our healthcare system... so they do get on the 'system' as a burden.

Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it instead of getting the point that it'd be much cheaper to insure these people than let them rely on emergency medicine. And that the reason we don't insure them is that they're illegals - legalize them all tomorrow and put them on medicaid, and you will dramatically reduce the costs of caring for their health by "bringing them into the system."

No I would remove minimum wage laws, and you'll see what happens.

That wouldn't make much difference to this stuff. It's basic macroeconomics - the supply of labor and the supply of capital - that determines the shape of the outcomes, not government intervention in wages.

No, its because the government won't let them live the 'survival game'... Because the governments there for you.

Not just (or even, primarily) the government: family and social support is at least as important in determining the incentives of US workers.

You should give all this producerist rhetoric a rest - you aren't fooling anyone.